The Sophono offers appealing clinical benefits of transcutaneous bone conduction hearing; however, the audiologic challenges of transcutaneous application remain, as the Sophono does not exceed percutaneous application regarding audiologic output.

Tissue preservation compared with tissue reduction leads to a generally favorable clinical outcome, comparable audiology results, and significantly shorter surgery time. Longer follow-up is warranted to conclude on the increased adverse soft-tissue reactions after 6 months.

This extensive long-term clinical investigation demonstrated that the test implant is more stable in terms of ISQ-values and provides high tolerability for the soft tissue. The results show that implant loading at 6 weeks is safe.

The objective of this study was to compare the stability, survival, and tolerability of 2 percutaneous osseointegrated titanium implants for bone conduction hearing: a 4.5-mm diameter implant (test) and a 3.75-mm diameter implant (control). Fifty-seven adult patients were included in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Sixty implants were allocated in a 2:1 (test–control) ratio. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days; 6 and 12 weeks; and 6 months. At every visit, implant stability quotient (ISQ) values were recorded by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and skin reactions were evaluated according to the Holgers classification. Implants were loaded with the bone conduction device at 3 weeks. Hearing-related quality of life was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI), and the Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI). ISQ values were statistically significantly higher for the test implant compared to the control implant. No implants were lost and soft tissue reactions were comparable for both implants. Positive results were reported in the hearing-related quality of life questionnaires. These 6-month results indicate that both implants and their corresponding hearing devices are safe options for hearing rehabilitation in patients with the appropriate indications. Loading at 3 weeks did not affect the stability of either implant.

Objective:To compare 3-year implant stability, survival, and tolerability of a 4.5-mm-wide (test) and a 3.75-mm-wide (control) percutaneous titanium implant for bone-conduction hearing, loaded with the sound processor after 3 weeks.Methods:Sixty implants were allocated in a 2:1 ratio (test-control) in 57 adult patients included in this prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Follow-up visits were performed at 7, 14, 21, and 28 days; 6 and 12 weeks; 6 months; and at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation. During these visits, the implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The peri-abutment soft tissue status was assessed according to the Holgers classification. Skin height around the abutment was evaluated.Results:The mean area-under-the-curve (AUC) of ISQ-low was statistically significantly higher for the test implant (65.7 versus 61.4, p = 0.0002). Both implants showed high survival rates (97.4% versus 95.0%, p = 0.6374). Adverse soft tissue reactions were observed sporadically, with no significant inter-group differences. Skin thickening was seen in the majority of the patients, but no correlation with adverse soft tissue reactions or implant type was observed.Conclusion:The 4.5-mm-wide implant provides significantly higher ISQ values during the first 3 years after surgery compared with the previous generation 3.75-mm-wide implant. Both implants showed high survival rates and good tolerability. These long-term results indicate that the wider implant, loaded with a sound processor at 3 weeks, is a safe and well-performing option for hearing rehabilitation in specific types of hearing loss.